Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Reflective equilibrium methodology is distinct from natur... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Reflective equilibrium methodology is distinct from naturalized epistemology in a significant respect

    Skepticism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Reflective equilibrium explicitly seeks to arrive at acceptable normative principles
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Naturalized epistemology does not share this explicit normative aim
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Reflective equilibrium, as Rawls conceived it, appeals to considered judgments shaped by contingent psychological and social facts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An methodology grounded in contingent human intuitions is itself a form of naturalism, as Stich and Weinberg argue in critiques of armchair epistemology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, reflective equilibrium and naturalized epistemology share a common dependence on empirical facts about cognizers, undermining their alleged distinctness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's naturalized epistemology retains normative aims, seeking to identify reliable belief-forming methods within a scientific framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If naturalized epistemology shares the normative goal of identifying good epistemic practices, the alleged distinction collapses into one of method, not aim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Virtue Ethics1 linked

    Related

    An methodology grounded in contingent human intuitions is itself a form of natur...If naturalized epistemology shares the normative goal of identifying good episte...Naturalized epistemology does not share this explicit normative aimQuine's naturalized epistemology retains normative aims, seeking to identify rel...
    +3 moreShow less
    Reflective equilibrium explicitly seeks to arrive at acceptable normative princi...Reflective equilibrium, as Rawls conceived it, appeals to considered judgments s...Therefore, reflective equilibrium and naturalized epistemology share a common de...

    Similar

    Reflective equilibrium methodology is closely allied with naturalized ...98%Reflective equilibrium is a valid methodology for justifying inductive...82%On the naturalized epistemology approach, knowledge claims are always ...76%QRE represents a statistical operationalization of equilibrium that is...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-epistemology
    View source passageHide passage
    Two allied methodologies need to be mentioned that arose along side of naturalized epistemology in the last century. Goodman introduced the concept of a reflective equilibrium in addressing the problem of justifying induction (Goodman 1955). Rules of inference would be formulated to explain what one takes to be valid scientific reasoning, much as one might formulate deductive inference rules to explain valid inferences of mathematicians. Application of these rules may, however, yield conclusions
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit